Categories
Opinions / Op-eds

Be Smart, Say “NO” to Corporate Immunity

I read Senator Mark Harris’ recent article that read more like a propaganda piece than an opinion piece. The theme of his article was that unless the Idaho legislature provides Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, with immunity, civilization as we know it will collapse. Until I read Senator Harris’ article, I never knew that without giving Bayer immunity for harm Roundup might cause Idahoans, we “jeopardize Idaho jobs, our food security and our national security.” Wow! No wonder Senator Harris says, “The stakes are high.” I mean who knew Roundup is essential to the national security of the United States.

Senator Harris says we must give Bayer immunity for harm Roundup might do to Idahoans so “we can ensure a prosperous future for Idaho” and “defend our economy and our way of life from those who seek to undermine them.” Luckily for us, Senator Harris identifies these “bad guys” who seek to destroy everything.

It turns out they’re the same boogeymen bad guys paid corporate spokesmen always point to when they want a special favor from government. It’s those “elitist trial lawyers” and “extremist environmental groups” who Senator Harris says, “have put hundreds of jobs in my district at risk” by spearheading what he calls “endless litigation” and “frivolous lawsuits.”

The problem is that Senator Harris can’t identify even one lawsuit in Idaho involving Roundup let alone “endless litigation.” Even so, Senator Harris says, “we must act now to protect Idahoans from extremist agendas that threaten our economy and communities” by closing what he calls “legal loopholes” and replacing them with “common-sense laws.” Note: “common-sense laws” is code for “Bayer immunity.”

Christ Troupis Book
Advertisement

The truth is that no “legal loopholes” exist that threaten Idaho’s economy, our way of life, or the national security of the United States. Senator Harris is using inflammatory rhetoric to scare people and to play to their biases so that he can pass a bill to give his constituent chemical company Bayer immunity from harm Roundup might cause Idahoans.

Although Senator Harris claims the EPA deems Roundup “safe,” I don’t trust government agencies especially when they get their information from manufacturers. Look, neither I nor you know if Roundup causes harm to people. But what we do know is that corporations have a long history of manufacturing products that harm people and then lying about their harmful effects.

You might have seen the movie “Dark Waters,” the true story of one lawyer’s twenty-year battle against chemical giant DuPont who poisoned the drinking water of an innocent community and lied for years about the harm it caused before paying $4 billion to pay for damages DuPont caused and lives it destroyed. You might also know that big pharma has paid billions of dollars in fines over the years for a variety of legal claims including fraud, illegal kickback schemes, and lying to the FDA by downplaying or omitting risks, exaggerating benefits, misrepresenting study data, failing to present a fair balance of risks and benefits, omitting importing facts, etc.

Chemical giant Monsanto first developed Roundup in the 1970s, and pharmaceutical company Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018. This might be the first marriage in modern history between a giant chemical company and a giant pharmaceutical company to create a new breed of behemoth known as “colossal chem-pharma.” What could possibly go wrong?

Idaho law already strikes the appropriate balance that allows companies to manufacture products while protecting Idahoans from damages those products might cause. We must be smarter than to create an “immunity loophole” for a single “colossal chem-pharma” company that it could use to insulate itself from liability against otherwise valid and compelling claims by innocent Idahoans.

Bryan Smith is a trial attorney and serves as the Idaho Republican National Committeeman.

Top 100+ Gifts!

4 replies on “Be Smart, Say “NO” to Corporate Immunity”

Whether it’s vaccines or Roundup, when an industry asks for immunity in this country, it only means one thing: we injure and people with our product. But the benefit to us outweighs the damage to you. Just ask our stockholders

A little big story about Roundup.
Many years ago I lived in Marin County Ca. I had a beautiful expensive 150 gallon salt water fish tank. Routinely I would change half the water every month with tap water mixed with instant ocean for all the salts. I did that in the summer and everything in the tank was dead the next day. I thought at first I did something very wrong except the aquarium store had the same thing happen simultaneously. The water co. put Roundup in the freshwater lakes to kill off the algae. The water we drink! Roundup mixed in salt water is deadly toxic, are bodies mostly salt water. God only knows how much Roundup is getting into the oceans worldwide killing everything in sight. If anything kills the planet, Roundup is making a mark that everyone ignores.

What could be better. Big Pharma and big chemical corporations against the trial lawyer lobby. Justice will be defined by the legal fees charged by either side. The people truely harmed will get pennies on the dollar.

I agree with Bryan that there should be no immunity for corporations, but I also believe that government sponsored boondoggles like incentives for vaccine production that have not been tested and whose efficacy is questionable and government agencies requiring Covid patients to be discharged back into nursing homes while still testing positive should be prosecuted. They too should not be exempt from liability and litigation and prosecution. The beat goes on and on.

Round up has created more economic utility, increased crop yields, and fed millions more people because of its use than if it had not been invented. And let’s not forget about the Rachel Carson “fake news” and the false hood in SILENT SPRING about DDT. How many people have died because DDT has not been available to help wipe out malaria and yellow fever. Has anybody been prosecuted for those estimated millions—over 200 million, deaths? The line between the good that a drug or chemical does and the harm that it has the potential of creating is not always known up front and is not always as clear as it may seem when looking backwards.

I am glad we have these corporations and I am even glad we have trial lawyers—but they too can do harm as they purposefully create arguments of the extreme to support their positions.

Comments are closed.

Gem State Patriot News